WESTWOOD >> Do you drool at the thought of a delicately seared foie gras at a gourmet French restaurant?

Or do you see the pricey hors d’oeuvre as a barbaric throwback that should be banned from California’s eateries?

The battle over those conflicting views today was being heard by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were scheduled by the court meeting at UCLA’s law school.

Diners have been able to order the delicacy in California since early this year after a lower court struck down a law enacted in 2012 banning restaurants from serving the item.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris in February filed a notice to appeal the Los Angeles federal judge’s ruling overturning the ban on sales of foie gras, the delicacy prepared from the force-feeding of ducks and geese.

Animal rights groups immediately applauded her efforts.

“We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will correct the district court’s mistake, and hope that the attorney general will hasten this result by expediting the appeal,” said Stephen Wells, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund said after the attorney general’s filing. “In the meantime, the Animal Legal Defense Fund will continue its work to eliminate this product of animal torture, with the expectation that the California law’s protections will soon be restored.”

The law banning the sale of foie gras — French for “fat liver” — and its byproducts went into effect in July 2012. A restaurant caught serving the gourmet item in California faced fines up to $1,000.

But early this year U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson struck down the ban, finding that the law was unconstitutional because it interferes with the U.S. Poultry Products Inspections Act, an existing federal law that regulates poultry products and trumps state regulations.

“We’re very confident that the district court’s judgment will be upheld on appeal,” said Sean Chaney, chef-owner of Hot’s Kitchen in Hermosa Beach, among those fighting the ban.

“The decision was based on the simple fact that, in the field of meat and poultry, federal law is supreme,” he said. “California does not have the right to ban wholesome, USDA-approved poultry products, whether it’s foie gras or fried chicken. We look forward to having our victory affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.”

An association of foie gras producers in Canada and New York, along with restaurant owners, sparked the legal battle when it challenged the law in Los Angeles federal court, arguing that it was vaguely written and interfered with interstate commerce.

But a Pasadena federal appeals court denied an injunction against enforcement of the law, ruling in August 2013 that opponents had failed to show they were likely to overturn it, and the U.S. Supreme Court in October denied review of the decision without comment.

Wilson previously rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the law was unconstitutional since it apparently regulates the feeding of ducks outside California.

The law had banned force-feeding ducks or geese to make foie gras within California and barred sales of foie gras produced elsewhere if it’s made by force- feeding a bird to enlarge its liver beyond normal size.

Animal lovers throughout the state crusaded against force feeding.

“Foie gras is the product of horrific cruelty to animals,” said Nathan Runkle, Mercy For Animals’ founder and president, adding that the group applauded Harris “for her decision to defend this important law and protect animals from being tortured for foie gras.”

“In a civilized society, it is our moral obligation to protect all animals, including ducks and other farmed animals, from needless cruelty and violence,” Runkle said. “The district court’s misguided decision to allow the sale of cruelly produced foie gras in California is a grave miscarriage of justice. The ruling is contrary to both law and common sense. We are confident that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will reject the district court’s bizarre and erroneous ruling and uphold this important law.”